Fairness, Pricing, and the Long-term Risk for Shoppers

Independent grocers in the U.S. collectively represent roughly one-third of grocery sales — more than Kroger, Albertsons, or even Walmart. You would think that scale would allow us to compete on price. And yet, for many independent stores, that isn’t the case. On key national brands, we sometimes see retail prices at major chains that are at, or even below, our cost of goods.

How can this happen?

Part of it is our business model. Independents are, by definition, hyper-local. Each store’s assortment is tailored to its community: what sells in Vermont may be completely different from what sells in Mississippi, Ohio, Washington, or Alaska. Localized assortments are a competitive advantage; they let us serve shoppers with the products they truly want, not just what a national chain chooses to stock. Shopper love for local brands, fresh produce, and regional favorites is baked into our DNA.

The challenge is efficiency. It’s far easier for a brand to produce a common item and sell it everywhere than to serve thousands of uniquely stocked stores. Independents solve for this by pooling our buying through regional and national distributors such as AWG, Bozzuto's, C&S, Ira Higdon, J.B. Gottstein, MDI, UNFI, Winkler, W. Lee Flowers, and more. These multi-billion-dollar companies, made up of thousands of individual stores, should give us a fair shot at the same pricing that big retailers get.

Often, they don’t. We frequently face a competitive disadvantage on cost of goods relative to national chains. Big brands may claim that serving a distributor is more expensive than supplying Walmart, Kroger, or Target. But when volumes are comparable, shipping distances similar, and products identical, these differences rarely justify the pricing gaps we see.

Recent FTC disclosures and enforcement activity have reinforced long-standing concerns among independents: pricing disparities often favor the largest retailers. Big brands get caught in a trap. Retail giants like Walmart and Target are so large that they cannot be ignored, and their buying power allows them to extract preferential terms. Suppliers comply not out of malice, but because walking away could crush sales, hurt shareholders, and damage careers.

I saw this dynamic firsthand during my 13 years at Home Depot. Large buyers can create dependencies by offering volume in exchange for preferential terms. Suppliers invest in factories and production lines for that volume, then find themselves unable to refuse when facing potential loss of business. The same principle is now at play in grocery.

Consumer advocates have long argued that dominant retailers harm shoppers by squeezing smaller competitors out of the market. While big chains may offer short-term price advantages, the long-term effect is clear: less competition leads to higher prices, fewer choices, and weaker brands. That is why laws like the Robinson-Patman Act exist, to prevent unfair price discrimination that threatens competition and ultimately consumers. Yet enforcement has been limited in recent decades.

Independent retailers don’t seek special treatment. We just want a level playing field: if we purchase the same quantities as larger chains, we should pay the same price. Fair and equal treatment isn’t just good for us, it’s good for consumers.

Today, rising fuel prices, inflation, and tariff pressures make this issue even more urgent. If price advantages remain concentrated in the hands of a few large chains, shoppers may have no choice but to leave independent stores. Market concentration puts thousands of community stores at risk, reduces consumer choice, and weakens the brands themselves.

The toy industry provides a cautionary tale. After Toys“R”Us collapsed, the toy market has remained highly concentrated among mass and online retailers like Walmart, Target, and Amazon. Margins at major toy manufacturers fell sharply and, while partially recovered, remain below pre-collapse peaks. The same dynamics — fewer competitors, concentrated retail power, squeezed brands — can play out in grocery.

Brands, take notice: consolidating power among the largest buyers may deliver short-term volume, but it erodes your leverage, lowers your margins, and limits the long-term health of your business.

FTC and policymakers, take notice: our laws exist to protect fair competition. Now more than ever, we need courageous leadership to ensure that independents can survive, and that communities and consumers continue to benefit from choice, innovation, and fair pricing.

Independent grocers are not asking for favors. We are asking for fairness, transparency, and a competitive marketplace so that every store, every brand, and every shopper can thrive.